Yemassee beats back annexation challenge

COLUMBIA — Land developers in Yemassee collected a victory Monday, when the S.C. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision to deny standing to a group challenging the town’s annexation actions.

“It allows the developers to proceed with the development of the property when this economic downturn is behind us,” said Roberts Vaux, an attorney in Bluffton, who represented the town.

Along with the town were Binden Plantation, LLC, Castle Hill Farms, Inc., and Raymond B. Basso. Those challenging the annexation were the S.C. Coastal Conservation League and community members Christopher Ward Campbell, Gregory Scott Kinsey and Shemuel Ben Yisrael.

“We have the option of asking them to reconsider but have not made any decisions yet,” said League legislative director Patrick Moore.

He said the case underscores the need for annexation reform, particularly regarding the definition of who meets standing criteria, and pointed to legislation introduced by Rep. Bill Herberksman, R-Bluffton, and Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort.

In 2006 the court record says the town adopted an ordinance to annex Binden Plantation and the “upland, marsh and Ocean and Coastal Resource Management critical areas” to include “the marshes of the Pocotaligo River and Stoney Creek,” and “any roads, rights-of-way, easements, railroad tracks, utility lines, or critical areas within the boundaries of Binden Plantation.”

The town also annexed a strip 20 feet wide on the property of Castle Hill Farms, starting at the intersection of U.S. 17 and 21 and running along the rights-of-way to those highways and to U.S. 17A, then along the right-of-way to Castle Hill Road up to the town’s boundary line.

A development agreement with the town said the land would be turned into single and multi-family homes, parks, equestrian facilities, golf courses, and commercial, office, and retail spaces.

“We’ve been waiting with baited breath,” added Vaux. “But it’s over with now. They can petition for a rehearing. But as far as this particular case goes, there’s no other court to appeal it to.”

The Coastal Conservation League has worked to reform current annexation laws, which they say lead to unsustainable sprawl, higher taxes, and the inefficient delivery of municipal services.

The court’s decision said the state, however, did have standing to challenge the annexation, but that the circuit court was wrong to decide the state’s signature was not required during the process. The court also noted that the statute of limitations had expired before the state tried to get involved.

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.